On Sunday, we gathered around our televisions to watch actors, directors and many others honored for their achievements in film at the 81st Annual Academy Awards. Now, we don't want to beat a dead horse here, but we want to congratulate Heath Ledger on becoming the second person to win a posthumous Oscar in an acting category, Sean Penn for joining an elite group of eight others who have won for Best Actor twice and both Penelope Cruz and Kate Winslet for winning their first Oscars. Although we relished the opportunity to watch the ceremonies, especially when James Franco and Seth Rogen reprised their roles as stoner buddies from "Pineapple Express" (2008), the fact of the matter remains that the presentation of the Oscars — in its purest form — is not meant for television.
The Academy tries to market the Oscars by shoehorning the actual award presentations into a more concise program; however, these oft-derided efforts barely impact ratings and do more to detract from the nominees' achievements than to attract viewers. Every year, someone is forced to cram a sea of emotions that arises after reaching the pinnacle of one's respective profession into a 45-second rambling. If they overshoot, they are promptly droned out by sweeping orchestral scores and ushered offstage. Time constraints also prevented Peter Gabriel from performing his song "Down To Earth" from "WALL-E" (2008) that was nominated for Best Original Song.
Instead of accentuating the awards and the nominees, the Oscars try to garner viewers through the host. Trying to pull a Justin Timberlake and "bring sexy back," the Academy bypassed the need for biting satire this year and dubbed Hugh Jackman master of ceremonies. Now, we love Jackman and think he is a true talent. But just because he is the sexiest man alive and he has an accent does not give him the creative control to turn the Oscars into the Tonys! Give us Will Ferrell or Tina Fey. Heck, we would even let Billy Crystal have his 87th go around, but Hugh Jackman?
Besides the host, the Oscars also place emphasis on the stars' outfits. We swear, if we hear Tim Gunn call one more person's gown "ravishing," we are going to lose it.
We think the Academy needs to decide what it wants. Does it want to purge itself of tradition and become the American public's lap dog? If so, why not eliminate "unnecessary awards" like production design and sound mixing and only nominate films that top the box office and whose actors appear in "Us Weekly" and "People?" Alternatively, does the Academy wish to recognize individuals for winning the Super Bowl of the film industry? Does it truly want to honor cinematic talent?
Come on, Academy. You try to preserve your dignity and professionalism by refusing to nominate a billion-dollar summer blockbuster like "The Dark Knight" (2008) for Best Picture. Yet you dress up Ben Stiller as a bearded rapper to present Best Achievement in Cinematography.
Even though the Academy made some attempts to improve the awards show, it was carried by individual performances by Steve Martin, Jack Black and that Asian guy who said "Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto." We are looking for the perfect balance of comedy and seriousness, goofiness and veneration. So we're sure that next year, we will be right back at square one, complaining about who was nominated, who was snubbed and how frustratingly broken the Academy Awards are.
--
Zach Drucker and Chris Poldoian are freshmen who have not yet declared majors. They can be reached at Zachary.Drucker@tufts.edu and Christopher.Poldoian@tufts.edu.
